Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Starlord]

It should be raised, and I'm saying that as someone who used to be a small business owner.

 

It should NOT be on the Covid bill and it should not more than double within 4 years.  I don't know about others, but that is what I said.  Just because the other side puts BS on bills as well isn't an argument and state-to-state cost of living is also a factor with a federal minimum wage.

[Cygnia]

This golden statue of Trump at CPAC is a perfect metaphor for the state of the GOP

[Pariah]

3 hours ago, archer said:

Yeah I saw that picture earlier today. A LOT of references to golden calves out there on social media.

 

And rightfully so.

 

Well, so much for an original witty thought on my part....

 

(Though to be fair, I'm having a great day if I can do either of those things, never mind both of them together.)

[unclevlad]

3 hours ago, Dr. MID-Nite said:

I'm so sick of the fallacy of "raising the minimum wage will hurt the economy". The evidence doesn't support this. Putting more money in the hands of more people has never been a negative.

 

Sure it is.

To the plutocrats.

[unclevlad]

2 hours ago, csyphrett said:

There is a lot of reasons for the belief, but mostly people don't realize wages have nothing to do with the price going up. They just think that's part of it when wages almost never go up unless it's for the executive staff at the head of the company.

 

CES 

 

There's that, to a degree, plus IMO a huge factor:  debt service, from debt taken on as part of a leveraged buyout, merger, etc.  And then, of course, the buyers have to pay out, not just for the loans involved, but any and all shareholders, old and new, demand their ROI.

[archer]

1 hour ago, Pariah said:

 

Well, so much for an original witty thought on my part....

 

(Though to be fair, I'm having a great day if I can do either of those things, never mind both of them together.)

 

IMO, it was still an original thought since it didn't originate from another source than yourself.

 

I didn't get the chance to have an original thought about it since I first saw it in the context of people calling it the Republican's golden calf.

 

Frankly, with some Christian leader's comparing the events of Trump's second impeachment to Judas's betrayal of Jesus then them rolling out the golden calf, it seems like the GOP is traveling back in time religiously.

 

Next they'll be burning infants to honor Moloch.

[Starlord]

[Old Man]

59 minutes ago, archer said:

Frankly, with some Christian leader's comparing the events of Trump's second impeachment to Judas's betrayal of Jesus then them rolling out the golden calf, it seems like the GOP is traveling back in time religiously.

 

Next they'll be burning infants to honor Moloch.

 

They've already sacrificed (checks worldometers) 522,875 Americans on that altar.

 

So far.

[archer]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/540787-key-democrat-offers-bill-to-restore-limited-earmarks

 

Under DeLauro’s plan, earmarks — which Democrats are calling “community project funding” — would only be permitted if lawmakers adhere to requirements like providing evidence of “strong community support” and only request funding for up to 10 projects.

 

The funding could only go toward state and local grantees or eligible nonprofit organizations, and could not be directed to for-profit recipients. 

 

Lawmakers would have to certify that neither they nor their families have any financial interest in the projects. In addition, every project funding request would be posted publicly online with descriptions justifying the rationale. 

 

The Government Accountability Office would also be required to audit a sample of enacted earmarks to ensure that the funding was used for its original intent. 

 

Earmarks would be limited to one percent of discretionary funding.

 

====

 

That's not completely dissimilar to reforms that I've talked about. Since the lawmaker proposing the earmark would have to certify that he has no financial interests at stake, obviously the earmark could no longer be done anonymously or by staff members without the knowledge of the lawmaker. So a lawmaker would have to take responsibility for the earmark and could be held accountable by the voters for his decisions.

 

I don't like the ban on for-profit recipients. If a lawmaker is earnest in thinking the Marines need to purchase more AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters, there's only one maker in the world for that and it isn't incorporated as a non-profit. And there's unlikely to be a non-profit start-up to make AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters.

[Dr. MID-Nite]

6 hours ago, Starlord said:

It should be raised, and I'm saying that as someone who used to be a small business owner.

 

It should NOT be on the Covid bill and it should not more than double within 4 years.  I don't know about others, but that is what I said.  Just because the other side puts BS on bills as well isn't an argument and state-to-state cost of living is also a factor with a federal minimum wage.

 

I disagree to some extent. The federal minimum wage is way too low and has been for a long time. You can flip burgers in Denmark for over 20 dollars an hour and their economy isn't collapsing. If the "doubling" seems too much, it's because we've been way behind the eight ball on this front. Sorry if we now have to rip the band aid off. And if we use the state argument as an impediment to raising wages for workers, we just might as well say we live in a country where you're never going to make a living wage. No...15 dollars an hour isn't equal in all states, but it's a start and we can even get our government to do that. Again, putting more money in more people's hands has never been bad. The working class spends it on the economy. The 1% hoards it. I do agree it shouldn't have been on the COVID bill. The issues deserves its own completely separate legislation.

[Iuz the Evil]

3 hours ago, archer said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/540787-key-democrat-offers-bill-to-restore-limited-earmarks

 

Under DeLauro’s plan, earmarks — which Democrats are calling “community project funding” — would only be permitted if lawmakers adhere to requirements like providing evidence of “strong community support” and only request funding for up to 10 projects.

 

The funding could only go toward state and local grantees or eligible nonprofit organizations, and could not be directed to for-profit recipients. 

 

Lawmakers would have to certify that neither they nor their families have any financial interest in the projects. In addition, every project funding request would be posted publicly online with descriptions justifying the rationale. 

 

The Government Accountability Office would also be required to audit a sample of enacted earmarks to ensure that the funding was used for its original intent. 

 

Earmarks would be limited to one percent of discretionary funding.

 

====

 

That's not completely dissimilar to reforms that I've talked about. Since the lawmaker proposing the earmark would have to certify that he has no financial interests at stake, obviously the earmark could no longer be done anonymously or by staff members without the knowledge of the lawmaker. So a lawmaker would have to take responsibility for the earmark and could be held accountable by the voters for his decisions.

 

I don't like the ban on for-profit recipients. If a lawmaker is earnest in thinking the Marines need to purchase more AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters, there's only one maker in the world for that and it isn't incorporated as a non-profit. And there's unlikely to be a non-profit start-up to make AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters.

I agree entirely the ban on for profit recipients is ludicrously disingenuous. A “not for profit” (501c3) is a tax status. Freaking insurance companies have that status, like Kaiser Permanente. It’s in NO WAY indicating the organization is a “charity”, it’s merely a business with a specific set of requirements on profit/loss and which can fill out forms that cite some community benefit. 
 

Ludicrous, freaking Altria (formerly Philip Morris) operates non profit subsidiaries. Hell any organization which has a foundation attached can use this to funnel resources. 
 

Meaningless and total political theater.

[Old Man]

The original rationale for it being in the COVID bill is that minimum wage workers are the “essential” workers that have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic and need immediate relief. Of course the “immediate” was already defeated by the pointless gradual increase until 2025. 

[Lord Liaden]

Unfortunately "political theater" plays a role in these arrangements. Emotions, biases, partisanship are unreasonable, but they're still powerful human motivations. In a representative democracy one ignores those motivations at peril, especially when one's political opponents can manipulate them to their own purpose. Appearances often count for as much as substance, sometimes even more.

[csyphrett]

7 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

There's that, to a degree, plus IMO a huge factor:  debt service, from debt taken on as part of a leveraged buyout, merger, etc.  And then, of course, the buyers have to pay out, not just for the loans involved, but any and all shareholders, old and new, demand their ROI.

I thought about this as to why my own boss is so adamant about not raising our wages no matter what. Like we netted a 100k in december. If the bills attached to the store are less than half of that, where is the rest going? jim and eric like to buy into other franchises. I'm wondering if the money goes there, like our part of the business is funding their speculation in other businesses

CES  

[IndianaJoe3]

11 hours ago, archer said:

I don't like the ban on for-profit recipients. If a lawmaker is earnest in thinking the Marines need to purchase more AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters, there's only one maker in the world for that and it isn't incorporated as a non-profit. And there's unlikely to be a non-profit start-up to make AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters.

 

 

I think you've picked a specious example, since (as I understand it) earmarks haven't been used for that sort of thing.

 

[Tom]

1 hour ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

 

 

I think you've picked a specious example, since (as I understand it) earmarks haven't been used for that sort of thing.

 

 

I'd suggest googling "Military Earmarks"...

 

Though digging back in my aging memory (which means don't expect cites), a lawmaker wanting to earmark spending for Cobras would more likely be seen as propping up production demand in their district as opposed to believing in a pressing need for the Marines to have more attack helicopters.

 

(Cynicism is a wonderful thing...)

-----

OK - I lied about the cites (I followed my own advice...)

 

[quote]

Democratic Representative John Murtha, who heads the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, managed to get $3.1 billion for eight C-17 and 11 C-130 military transport planes included. However, that has been pared back by four C-130s.

The Pentagon did not request the aircraft but lawmakers want them to preserve jobs in their home states and Murtha disputes the military's contention that they are not needed.

[/quote]

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN08333615

 

[archer]

2 hours ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

 

 

I think you've picked a specious example, since (as I understand it) earmarks haven't been used for that sort of thing.

 

 

Earmarks have often been used for such things.

 

Specifically, a lawmaker in the 1980's used it to save the military's smart bomb program which allows us to pinpoint bomb military targets rather than having to carpet bomb general areas (and incidentally inflict lots of civilian casualties).

 

Those bombs were used, with great media fanfare, during the first Gulf War.

[Dr. MID-Nite]

13 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Unfortunately "political theater" plays a role in these arrangements. Emotions, biases, partisanship are unreasonable, but they're still powerful human motivations. In a representative democracy one ignores those motivations at peril, especially when one's political opponents can manipulate them to their own purpose. Appearances often count for as much as substance, sometimes even more.

 

This "political theater" ceased to be entertaining a LONG time ago.

[Old Man]

51 minutes ago, Dr. MID-Nite said:

 

This "political theater" ceased to be entertaining a LONG time ago.

And yet it’s gripping, like watching train wrecks. As a passenger. 

[Lord Liaden]

4 hours ago, Dr. MID-Nite said:

 

This "political theater" ceased to be entertaining a LONG time ago.

 

Agreed. But it was never meant to be entertaining, except to the hand-rubbing, mustache-twirling, maniacal laughers.

[Ternaugh]

17 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

Agreed. But it was never meant to be entertaining, except to the hand-rubbing, mustache-twirling, maniacal laughers.

 

My mustache twirling is for entertainment purposes only.

[unclevlad]

3 hours ago, Ternaugh said:

 

My mustache twirling is for entertainment purposes only.

 

But whose entertainment?

[Old Man]

Looks like they're not even trying to hide it any more: (spoiled for literal Nazi symbology)

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

Naturally it's being denied as "an unfortunate coincidence", wink wink nudge nudge.

[Lord Liaden]

You fight the grandest, costliest war in history to eradicate vermin, only to discover they've infested your own house. 😣

[Starlord]

Stage designer Adolph Göring was unavailable for comment.